The Coming Political Realignment…. And What it Means for Nonprofit Advocacy -July 2006--

A Special Report from Enterprising Strategies 6325 Barrister Place Alexandria, Virginia 22307 (703) 768-1612 www.enterprisingstrategies.com

Enterprising: Adj. 1) distinguished by imagination, initiative and a willingness to take on new challenges…

Copyright 2006 by Enterprising Strategies Additional copies of this report can be obtained by e-mailing: [email protected]

Enterprising Strategies The Coming Political Realignment… And What it Means for Nonprofit Advocacy --July 2006--

Executive Summary The nation’s electorate is moving toward a major political realignment. The signs are everywhere. The President’s approval rating has plummeted. A strong plurality of Americans is planning to vote Democratic in the next Congressional election. And, most significantly, the vast majority of Americans believe the nation is moving in the wrong direction. And it’s not just the poll numbers: the Republicans are facing difficult, and seemingly intractable, problems that will likely frustrate their efforts to win back public confidence. As a result, Americans are losing faith in the conservative vision that has dominated American political thinking for the last quarter of a century. Major political realignments are rare; they happen only two or three times a century. If a major political realignment does occur in 2006 or 2008, it will be the first major realignment since Ronald Reagan’s 1980 election, when Republicans regained control of the White House and the Senate. The next major realignment, like the realignment that occurred in 1980, could mark a major turning point in America’s domestic and foreign policies. Much will depend, however, on what kind of policy groundwork is laid by progressive nonprofits. Prior to the 1980 election, conservative groups like the American Council for Capital Formation, the Committee on the Present Danger, the Heritage Foundation, and the Mountain States Legal Foundation played an instrumental and largely unheralded role in designing and making possible the Reagan Revolution. They not only advanced the specific proposals and ideas, like deregulation and supply-side economics, which would form the core of President Reagan’s agenda; they also actively promoted them with opinion leaders and the broader public. The coming political realignment gives progressive policy organizations a chance to help reshape America’s future, but they must act quickly. If history is any gauge, the window of opportunity is small. The great bulk of the Reagan Revolution was enacted within Reagan’s first year. Much of what was accomplished following Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s election in 1932, the other great realignment of the 20th Century, was achieved within the famous “first one hundred days.” If a Democrat, or even an independent, is elected President in 2008, the Congress that is sworn in January of 2009 will likely to be as productive and enduring in its impact as any Congress since the 97th Congress that took office in 1981. Progressive groups that want to influence the direction of the coming political realignment should undertake a thorough reassessment of their operations, beginning with a review of their strategic plan. As conservative groups did in the late 1970’s, they need to improve their fundraising capacity, strengthen their leadership, conduct the necessary research, hone and deploy their message, recruit effective spokespersons, expand membership, build coalitions, and seize opportunities to demonstrate the saliency of their issue or proposal. Enterprising: Adj. 1) distinguished by imagination, initiative and a willingness to take on new challenges…

2

The Coming Political Realignment… And What it Means for Nonprofit Advocacy. --July 2006-By R. J. Walker

Preparing for Political Realignment In the years that immediately preceded the election of Ronald Reagan as president, a small group of conservative policy groups played a pivotal and largely unheralded role in preparing for and enabling the “Reagan Revolution.” Indeed, much of Reagan’s success in advancing his political agenda can be traced to the planning and strategies adopted by these conservative policy groups. Now, as another political realignment approaches, progressive organizations, big and small, have much to learn from their success.

The nation’s electorate is moving toward a major political realignment. The signs are everywhere. The President’s approval rating has plummeted. A strong plurality or even a majority of Americans is planning to vote Democratic in the next Congressional election. And, most significantly, the vast majority of Americans believe the nation is moving in the wrong direction. If the country is moving towards a major political realignment, what will it look like? When will it occur? How will it affect the policy debate? And what should nonprofit advocacy groups be doing to prepare for it? The answers to these questions are of critical importance to any organization, progressive or conservative, that seeks to influence public policy. The stakes are high. Major political realignments in America are rare. They occur only two or three times a century. And when they do happen, they usher in major change. The last major political realignment, which culminated in the election of 1980, introduced supply-side economics, produced a rapid military buildup, led to extensive deregulation, and resulted in the devolution of a wide array of federal programs to the states. Changes of a similar magnitude could occur in the coming political realignment. But not all progressive causes will emerge triumphant, nor will all conservative causes suffer major reversals. Much depends on what organizations do to prepare for realignment. The interests and organizations that anticipate change, and position themselves accordingly, will likely succeed. Those that do not will almost certainly fail. Copyright 2006 by Enterprising Strategies Additional copies of this report can be obtained by e-mailing: [email protected]

3

This paper looks at the growing prospect of political realignment, what it means for progressive nonprofit organizations, and details the preparation that will be required to take advantage of it. In doing so, it examines what nonprofit organizations did in advance of the last major political realignment, and dissects some of the valuable lessons that can be learned from their experience.

Political Realignment Scholars differ over what is meant by a major political realignment. Some see it as a landslide election that produces a shift in control of the White House and Congress. The election of 1932 certainly fits that definition. Franklin Delano Roosevelt soundly defeated Hoover in the popular vote, 57%-40%, while the Democrats regained control of the Senate and achieved a huge majority in the House. But not all political realignments are as decisive, or as seismic in their implications, as the Democratic landslide of 1932. Most scholars, for example, say that the election of 1980 constituted a major political realignment even though Reagan won with only 50.8 percent of the vote and the Democrats retained control of the House. That’s because the election of 1980 was more than a rejection of Jimmy Carter, it represented a fundamental shift in the political allegiances of what became known as the “Reagan Democrats.” The defection of bluecollar workers and their families from the Democratic Party created a fundamental change in America’s political calculus.1 Most significantly, it forced members of both parties to reassess their position on critical issues, leading moderate Republicans and conservative Democrats alike to embrace critical aspects of the Reagan agenda. If political realignment is defined as a profound shift in the political allegiances of the electorate, rather than the subsequent shift in political control of the White House or the Congress, political realignment may already be happening. Signs of political realignment, in fact, are already emerging, as Republicans begin to address Democratic issues like global warming and take on traditional allies like the oil companies. As political realignment takes hold, we can expect members of both parties to speak more directly to the concerns of “swing” voters, particularly newly disaffected voters. What Triggers Political Realignment? Major political realignments arise from a pivotal loss-of-confidence in the governing party’s ability to address critical national problems. Realignments are, almost invariably, a post-traumatic response to scandal,2 domestic policy failures, or foreign policy reversals. The political realignment of 1932, for example, was a reaction to the sudden and catastrophic collapse of the economy under Herbert Hoover. The Great Depression, which was already well underway by Election Day 19323, caused voters to lose faith in the Republicans and their ability to manage the economy.

1

Some scholars regard the Republican takeover of the U.S. House of Representatives in 1994 as a major political realignment, but it’s probably more accurate to think of it as a further extension of the political realignment that began in 1980. 2 The Watergate scandal, for example, led to major Democratic gains in the 1974 elections. 3 The stock market crash of October 1929 did not immediately plunge the nation into the Great Depression, but by Election Day 1932 one out of four Americans were unemployed.

4

Similarly, voters in 1980 were responding to perceived policy failures. Gas shortages, inflation, and stagnant job growth convinced many blue-collar voters that the Democrats could no longer manage the economy. “Reagan Democrats” also believed, based principally on Carter’s failure to resolve the Iranian hostage crisis, that Democrats were “weak” on national defense. Together, these domestic and foreign policy setbacks led swing voters to conclude that the country was headed in the wrong direction and that new leadership was required. Will the Democrats Make Major Gains in the Upcoming Congressional Elections? “By virtually any measure, the Republican Party's national poll numbers are at least as bad as Democrats' were before their 1994 debacle. For a time, the GOP's national problems did not seem to be spilling over onto individual Republican candidates. But since the first of the year, we have begun to see evidence that most House Republicans are running 5 to 10 points behind where they would be in the absence of a national undertow.” Charlie Cook, publisher of the Cook Political Report, in a National Journal column that appeared on May 31, 2006

A Washington Post-ABC News poll conducted in May of 2006 found that only 33 percent of Americans approved of “the way Republicans in Congress are doing their job.”4 While this result certainly supports the argument that Democrats could score strong gains in the upcoming elections, it is not conclusive. The same Washington PostABC poll cited above found that the public is only slightly more approving (39%) of “the way Democrats in Congress are doing their job.” Still, there is ample polling evidence to support the argument that the Democrats could make significant legislative gains in the 2006 and 2008 elections. For several months now, polls have indicated that in response to a generic question (e.g. If the election were held today would you vote for a Democratic or a Republican candidate for Congress?), Democrats have maintained a double-digit lead among registered voters. In the May 2006 Washington Post-ABC News poll, cited above, 52 percent indicated that they would vote Democratic, only 40 percent said that they would vote Republican. If this trend continues, would that produce significant Democratic gains in the House this fall? Charlie Cook, a respected political observer and author of the Cook Political Report, appears to think so. He reports that many House Republicans are experiencing slippage in their district polls. Experts, of course, will continue to disagree as to whether the edge that Democrat’s now enjoy in the polls will translate into major Congressional gains in the fall. While voters may express a strong preference for one party or the other in Congressional races, they often end up voting for their incumbent, regardless of the incumbent’s party affiliation. Also, redistricting has increased the number of “safe” seats held by Republicans. Finally, much may depend on the quality of the challengers being put up by the Democrats and the amount of money that the Democrats can raise for key races. Those caveats notwithstanding, the potential for a major realigning election in which the Democrats take back one or both Houses is very real. At some point, and the point 4

The poll (May 11-15, 2006) was conducted by telephone among 1,103 randomly selected adults nationwide. The margin of sampling error for overall results was plus or minus three percentage points. Go to http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_051606.htm for the full results.

5

may not be too far off, a strong tidal effect take holds. If the Republicans drop a few more points in the polls, the resulting loss of seats could be significantly larger than currently anticipated. A lot of GOP House seats that look “safe” today could easily be in jeopardy tomorrow. A net Democratic gain of 15 House seats in 2006, the number required to regain control, is well within range. And while Senate Democrats appear less likely to pick up the six seats needed to regain control of the Senate in 2006, a strong Democratic tide could easily put the Senate in reach in 2008.

The Polls: Pre-1980 and Now Public opinion today is strikingly reminiscent of public opinion in the years that immediately preceded the watershed election of 1980: Do you approve or disapprove of the way that the President is doing his job? Jimmy Carter, June 1979 (Gallup) Approve 29% George W. Bush, May 2006 (USAToday/Gallup): Approve 31% Is the country going in the right or the wrong direction? February 1980 (Roper): Right track: 20% May 2006 (Washington Post-ABC News): Right track: 29%

Wrong track: 70% Wrong track: 69%

Do you approve or disapprove of the way the U.S. Congress is doing its job? June 1979 (Washington Post-ABC News): Approve: 19% Disapprove: 61% June 2006 (Wall St. Journal-NBC News): Approve: 23% Disapprove: 64%

Strong Democratic gains in 2006, even if those gains fall short of giving Democrats control of the House or the Senate, will not mean the end of political realignment. If the Democratic performance is strong enough, many Republicans will be forced to acknowledge and, ultimately accommodate in some fashion, the concerns and issues that motivated swing voters to vote Democratic. But a major political realignment, regardless of what happens in the 2006 elections, will not be fully realized until the Democrats take back the White House in 2008. Political Realignment: the White House in 2008 The odds are steadily growing that the Democrats will take the White House back in 2008. A recent Newsweek poll5 found that 50% of adults would rather see a Democrat elected as our next president; only 31% preferred a Republican. Republicans, of course, have done somewhat better in some of the projected match ups. Last year, for example, voters strongly preferred Sen. John McCain over Sen. Hillary Clinton. But in more recent polls, McCain’s lead has deteriorated.6 The difficulty for McCain and other Republican aspirants is that no one is likely to gain the Republican presidential 5

Conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International, May 11-12, 2006. 1,007 adults nationwide were surveyed. The margin of error was plus or minus 3% for all adults. 6 Recent surveys have shown both John McCain and Rudy Guiliani holding a small, though shrinking, lead over Sen. Clinton in the polls. For a compilation of the latest polls measuring potential presidential matchups in 2008, go to www.pollingreport.com.

6

nomination without embracing, to a large degree, the Bush Administration record, and that could cause problems for the Republican nominee in the fall campaign. As in previous political realignments, voters have lost faith in the ability of the ruling party to address critical national problems. One of the starkest indicators of this loss of confidence is the percentage of people who believe the country is on the wrong track. The Washington Post-ABC poll that was taken in May of 2006 indicated that 69% of Americans believe that “things have gotten pretty seriously off on the wrong track.” Only 29% believe that the nation is on the right track. With the Republican Party in control of the White House and both Houses of Congress, the response to this question strongly suggests that a major political realignment may be coming. Just as importantly, this same Washington Post-ABC News poll found that a large plurality of Americans (50%) believe that the Democrats can “do a better job in coping with the main problems facing the country over the next few years,” compared to 36% who thought that the Republicans could do a better job. Even worse for Republicans, the poll found that on every major issue, the people trusted the Democrats to do a better job. Even on taxes and terrorism, Americans expressed greater confidence in the Democrats. On many of the issues—like health care, education and the federal budget—the Democrats held a lead of more than 20 percentage points. On issue after issue, it’s very hard to see the Republicans regaining their lost ground anytime soon. It’s not just that Republicans may be politically restrained by the more conservative elements of their party, it’s that they are policy constrained. Twenty-five years after Ronald Reagan was sworn into office, the Republicans are running out of new solutions for dealing with many of the today’s problems. As such, they are in danger of being perceived as a spent political force, incapable of addressing critical national issues. On the domestic front, the Republicans have gone about as far as they can go on cutting taxes. While Congress recently voted to extend some of the Bush tax cuts and is preparing to slash the federal estate tax, few people—inside or outside the party— believe that Republicans in Congress will launch yet another round of major tax cuts next year; the federal budget deficit looms too large. Republican proposals on major issues like Social Security (privatization) and health care (medical savings accounts) appear to have little traction. On education, the Republicans appear to have gone as far as they can go with the No Child Left Behind law; Congress is unlikely to provide the funding needed to give the measure further impetus. On immigration, one domestic issue where the party has some room for maneuvering, the party is sharply divided; and while some form of immigration compromise could be approved by Congress, it appears unlikely that such measure would significantly boost public approval of the Republicans. On the foreign policy front, Republican fortunes are inextricably tied to Iraq, where the best that can be hoped for in the short term is some easing of the turmoil that now grips the country. No one expects that Iraq or the Middle East will be turned into a political asset for the Republicans, certainly not in time for the 2006 elections. Meanwhile, little progress has been made in dealing with Iran and North Korea and any major breakthrough is likely to take many months, if not years, to finalize. And, even if

7

agreements are negotiated, it’s unlikely that they would give President Bush or Congressional Republicans a sustained boost in the polls. The core problem for the Republicans, at this juncture, is that there is little in the way of upside potential. Even the economy, which has performed arguably well in the past 18 months, appears to be constrained by fears of inflation. With the recent jump in energy prices, a chronic federal deficit, and a large current account deficit, the Federal Reserve will be forced to raise interest rates still further if the economy picks up steam. It is still possible, of course, to conjure up scenarios that would lift Republican prospects in the near-term, but it is increasingly difficult. Outside of capturing Osama Bin Laden, bringing North Korea to heel, or controlling the insurgency in Iraq, the Republican upside potential appears limited. The downside risks, on the other hand, are almost too numerous to mention. Republican strategists have to be concerned about a raft of problems getting worse, everything from more criminal indictments to civil war in Iraq to another bad hurricane season. In terms of both public opinion and the difficulties they are encountering, the situation facing Republicans today is very reminiscent of the troubles that the Democrats faced prior to the 1980 elections.

It’s not just the poll numbers, Republicans today, like the Democrats in 1979-80, are confronting difficult and seemingly intractable problems at home and abroad. Nothing is ever certain in American politics. Events can conspire to foil any forecast, but the odds are growing that there will be a major political realignment in 2008. Even if a strong third party candidate were to enter the race in 2008 and win, it’s not clear that it would negate the larger political forces that are work. Public discontent is not limited to the Republicans who are now in charge. It’s more than a loss of faith in George Bush and Congressional leaders; it’s a collapse of confidence in the brand of conservative thinking that has largely dominated the political debate since the election of 1980. Americans are looking for a new way of approaching our problems. And, whether that new philosophy of change comes from one of the two major parties or from an independent ticket, something new is likely to emerge. As Peggy Noonan, recently wrote in the Wall Street Journal, “Something’s happening. I have a feeling we’re at some new beginning, that a big breakup is coming, and that though it isn’t and will not be immediately apparent, we’ll someday look back on this era as the time when a shift began.” The ultimate scope and success of any political realignment will depend in part upon the quality of national leadership that emerges, but the stage is being set.

Political Realignments: Changing the Policy Landscape Major political realignments are like earthquakes; they suddenly and radically alter the political landscape. There is no mystery to the “fault lines” that lead to a political realignment; they develop in response to scandals, domestic policy failures or foreign policy setbacks. And the greatest impact of a political realignment is felt along those same fault lines. 8

But political realignments, like any seismic event, have wide-ranging impacts. Any time a political party retakes the White House or the Congress, the nation’s agenda shifts to reflect the priorities of the prevailing party, but in the aftermath of a realigning election the resulting changes can be profound, swift, enduring and sweeping. In the wake of his 1932 victory, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and a Democratic Congress moved with astonishing speed to enact much of the “New Deal.” Similarly, after Reagan’s win in 1980, the Republicans lost no time in enacting supply-side tax cuts, increasing defense spending, and cutting domestic spending.

Political realignments create a “window of opportunity,” but it’s a small window. The New Deal and the “Reagan Revolution” were largely accomplished in less than two years. As powerful as political realignments can be, they don’t change everything. No matter how large the mandate, not everything gets accomplished. With our system of checks and balances, even the most popular of newly elected Presidents must seize the momentum, set priorities, and focus on a few key initiatives. Initiatives that are postponed until the next Congress, or even the second year of the Administration, encounter more resistance and often fail. Whether a policy proposal is ever signed into law depends, in no small degree, upon whether the proper groundwork has been laid. Major policy proposals rarely spring full-born from a new Administration7 and those that do, like Clinton’s health care initiative, often fail to get passed. Successful policy initiatives, particularly major reforms, require extensive preparation.

Preparing for Political Realignment: Lessons from 1980 “When Ronald Reagan was elected president, many people in the United States were surprised, some were shocked, and a few were stunned. Most of the world was puzzled. But their surprise and puzzlement soon turn into astonishment as President Reagan’s policies began to take effect. Not everyone was surprised or puzzled, though. There were a few who had been working to accomplish this…” Martin Anderson, Reagan’s Domestic Policy Advisor

During the first year of the Reagan Administration, Congress passed the largest tax cut in the history of the nation, set defense expenditures on a course that would increase the defense budget by 25 percent in real terms in just a few years, and passed an omnibus budget reconciliation bill that purported to cut domestic spending by $140 billion over

7

Some of the initiatives that were enacted during the first 100 days of the Roosevelt Administration were new in concept, but many—including many of the important relief measures—had been proposed in the preceding Congress or debated in the months running up to the election. Even the legislation relating to creating the Tennessee Valley Authority was not new. Hoover vetoed a similar bill in 1931.

9

three years.8 In just twelve months the Reagan Presidency, with the support of many Democrats, radically reshaped the federal government. Political realignment made the “Reagan Revolution” possible, but the groundwork for its legislative and policy accomplishments was laid by a small number of conservative nonprofit organizations working to effect change. Without their messaging, researching, strategizing, coalition building, and policy work, far less would have been accomplished during the early days of the Reagan Administration. On each of the major policy fronts, there were one or more organizations that paved the way. It’s instructive to look back at what some of those key groups and organizations did to prepare for the Reagan presidency. The “Supply-Side Revolution”

In pursuing their agenda, the supply-siders overcame a doubting public and an equally skeptical business community. More than just visionaries, they were revolutionaries. In the summer of 1977, three years before Ronald Reagan would accept his party’s nomination, “supply-side economics” was little known and even less understood outside of a small circle of economists. Art Laffer, a relatively obscure economist at the University of Southern California, had already sketched his now famous curve on a napkin, but few economists had endorsed the idea that a cut in income tax rates would boost federal revenues. Rep. Jack Kemp had introduced a bill to cut marginal income tax rates by one-third and accelerate capital depreciations rates, but only a couple of dozen House Republicans had cosponsored it. Former Texas Governor John Connally, regarded by many as the frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination, spurned it. Even Ronald Reagan, who would later embrace it as part of his 1980 platform, had rejected Kemp’s bill when he ran unsuccessfully for the presidential nomination in 1976. Business interests in Washington were largely skeptical of the claims being made by supply-siders. When it came to changing federal tax policy, most business leaders preferred more traditional forms of economic stimulus like investment tax credits. Many thought that the income tax rate cuts went too far and would have settled for the “indexing” of tax rates to prevent “bracket creep.” Few thought that Kemp’s bill would ever pass. The American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF), however, eagerly embraced supply-side economics and played an instrumental role in lining up support from the business community and Members of Congress. Founded in the mid 1970’s by Charls Walker, ACCF was a small nonprofit organization that gave timely and much needed institutional support to supply-side theories. A well-respected lobbyist and a top 8

Reagan Administration estimate of how much the Gramm-Latta II budget cuts would save in the three years beginning in FY1982. In reality, the savings estimate was inflated. As Reagan’s Budget Director, David Stockman, would later observe, “The extent to which this victory was composed of promises and paper would only become apparent later.” Still, the budget cuts in their totality represented an abrupt change in fiscal policy and marked an important turning point for many domestic programs.

10

Treasury Department official during the Nixon Administration, Walker acidulously courted legislators on Capitol Hill and help to persuade other key business interests, including the Chamber of Commerce of the United States, to endorse the Kemp-Roth bill. Walker’s lobbying efforts were augmented by Mark Bloomberg, who still serves today as executive director of ACCF, and Dr. Richard Rahn, who left in 1980 to become chief economist for the Chamber of Commerce of the United States. Working together with Jack Kemp and Art Laffer, they laid the groundwork for what would soon become known as the “Supply-Side Revolution.”

Dissecting the Supply-Side Revolution: What Worked The rapid success of the supply-siders is an important lesson for any interest group seeking to affect a major change in public policy in anticipation of a political realignment. Here are the seven secrets to their success:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

They thought big. A bill to cut income tax rates, by even modest amounts (e.g. 10 percent), would not have passed in the Democraticallycontrolled Congress, so Kemp and his supporters took a longer and more visionary approach. They gambled that the next President and a future Congress would be more receptive to their supply-side theory. They kept it simple. The Kemp-Roth tax bill was a model of simplicity. The authors could have sought to broaden public support for the tax cut by giving low-income taxpayers a bigger tax break. They could have thrown in some special tax breaks for the struggling industries like autos or steel. But they knew that added complexity would detract from their supply-side message. They had a positive message. The Kemp-Roth tax cut would by some measures amount to the largest tax cut in the history of the country, but the supply-siders never described it in those terms. Kemp called his bill the “Job Creation Act,” insisting that he did not want to cut tax revenues. Kemp, in fact, argued that the country needed more tax revenue…and that cutting tax rates was the way to generate it. They recruited the right public messengers. Supply-siders could have recruited a senior member of the House Ways and Means Committee to help pass their legislation, but they went to a junior House member. What Jack Kemp lacked in seniority and committee assignments, he made up for in tenacity and intensity. Art Laffer, their leading economist and traveling ambassador, spoke with infectious enthusiasm. And while Jude Wanniski was not a gifted speaker, he wrote with great passion for the Wall Street Journal, and his book, The Way the World Works, became the bible of the supply-side movement. They played a strong “in-side” game. While Kemp, Laffer and Wanniski were busy selling the core supply-side message to the broader public, the American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF) played a leading role in persuading skeptical business leaders and Members of Congress that there was both a credible, intellectual basis to supply-side economics and a workable political strategy for getting the Kemp-Roth bill enacted into law. 11

6.

7.

They recognized the importance of presidential campaigns. Presidential campaigns serve as a valuable, and often indispensable, platform for new ideas. Gov. John Connally, the early frontrunner was highly skeptical of the supply-side approach. George H.W. Bush labeled it “voodoo economics.” But the supply-siders assiduously courted Ronald Reagan and his advisors and ultimately converted them to their cause. They were responsive to the concerns of swing voters. Their rhetoric about boosting savings and investment may have been lost on swing voters, but the broader message of stimulating the economy through tax cuts struck a responsive chord with blue-collar workers who were struggling to pay their bills and keep their jobs.

The Reagan Defense Buildup Supply-side economics was not the only policy groundwork that was laid in advance of the 1980 elections. In the late 1970s, a small but influential group of hard-line defense advocates laid the groundwork for Reagan’s defense buildup. Concerned about “windows of vulnerability” and stressing the importance of naval and nuclear superiority, they developed the strategic concepts that would form the basis of Reagan’s defense policy.

The Reagan defense buildup was years in the making. Long before Reagan took office, a small network of organizations and policy analysts were laying the intellectual groundwork. These “hard-liners” were scattered around the country, working for public institutions like the American Enterprise Institute or private “think tanks” like the Rand Corporation. But a small group of nonprofit organizations, most notably the Committee on the Present Danger (CPD), worked together to network and publicize their views. Originally active in the 1950s, CPD was revived in the mid-1970s with support from conservative foundations, including the Carthage Foundation and the Sara Scaife Foundation. CPD brought together a bipartisan network of defense experts that would later play a key role in the Reagan defense buildup. In the years leading up to the Reagan administration, CPD served as a vital convener and provided a public platform for the views of its members, which included such notables as Kenneth Adelman, Richard Allen, William J. Casey, Jeanne J. Kirkpatrick, John Lehman, Paul Nitze and Richard Perle. Working in concert with other groups, like the American Security Council, the National Coalition for Peace Through Strength, and the Heritage Foundation, CPD and its allies carefully advanced the core strategies and ideas that would later be adopted by Reagan’s transition team. The Reagan Administration did not embrace all of the ideas advanced by CPD and its founders. William R. Van Cleave, a CPD executive committee member who became head of Reagan’s transition team, failed in his campaign to boost the U.S. nuclear

12

arsenal through a package of “quick fixes.”9 But others were enormously successful. John F. Lehman, a prominent CPD member, who had been leading a campaign for a 600-ship navy, was selected by Reagan as Secretary of the Navy and secured the Administration’s support of that goal.10 The big defense contractors lobbied Congress for the production of specific weapons like the B-1 bomber and the Trident submarine, but it was this broader group of thinkers who provided the strategies and justification for Reagan’s defense buildup, which in four years boosted defense spending from 5.3 percent to 6.5 percent of GDP. Reducing the Size and Role of the Federal Government With respect to both budget and regulatory policies, the Heritage Foundation played a leading role in preparing conservatives for the political realignment of 1980. Founded in 1973 with support from Joseph Coors, Heritage was a relatively new player on the block. In 1976, the organization had only $1 million in revenues.11 When its current president, Edwin J, Feulner, took over in June of 1977, it did not, in the words of one historian, “resemble the flagship of a mighty conservative fleet. It was only a small, overcrowded oil tanker. The foundation’s staff of twenty-five worked cheek by jowl out of a small two-story building.”12 But in the course of just 18 months, Feulner “increased its base of grassroots financial supporters to some 120,000 and its annual budget to $2.8 million.”13

The Heritage Foundation saw that political realignment was coming and seized the historic opportunity that it presented. Heritage, more than any other organization in Washington, meticulously planned for what one observer called its “hour of conservative opportunity.” In January of 1980, a full year before Reagan would take the oath of office; Heritage began a massive campaign to prepare for a Reagan presidency. It established twenty teams of experts, most of them outside of Heritage, to map out strategies for virtually every federal department and agency. In all, more than 250 experts participated in the project,14 which reviewed everything from budget cuts to energy policy to innovative ideas like urban “enterprise zones.” The final product of their labor, Mandate for Change, was delivered to Reagan’s transition team just a few days after the November election. Mandate for Change provided a virtual roadmap for the Reagan Administration. The detailed recommendations allowed David Stockman, the incoming Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the new Cabinet officers to seize the political momentum and move with almost unprecedented speed in downsizing and reshaping government. The project itself generated new ideas and allowed conservatives to coalesce around specific objectives. Additionally, the project served as a giant, anticipatory talent search. Many of the contributors to Mandate later filled key jobs in the Reagan Administration. In the words of one historian, “Mandate represented an 9

Congressional Quarterly Almanac 1981, p. 191 Ibid, p.192 11 Lee Edwards, The Power of Ideas: The Heritage Foundation at 25 Years, (Jameson Books, 1997), p.14 12 Ibid. p.19 13 Ibid. p.27 14 Ibid. pp. 41-4 10

13

enormous gamble for the seven-year old public-policy institute.”15 It was, of course, a gamble that paid off. The Heritage Foundation was not the only conservative “think tank” that anticipated and deliberately planned for political realignment. The Hoover Institution, a more established policy group, also helped to provide a roadmap for the Reagan Administration. In January of 1980, a full year before Reagan would take office, it produced The United States in the 1980s, an 898-page anthology that gave a conservative critique of both domestic and foreign issues. Martin Anderson, one of Reagan’s top domestic policy advisors, later credited many of the Reagan Administration’s achievements to the recommendations that appeared in the book. Relaxing Environmental Regulations Upon entering office, the Reagan Administration moved with startling speed to enact its deregulatory agenda. In his first week in office, Reagan established a Task Force on Regulatory Reform headed by Vice President Bush, and ordered the complete deregulation of oil prices. Then, using the blueprints laid out by the Heritage Foundation and the Hoover Institution, the Reagan Administration began working on a broad front to stymie or rollback Carter-era regulation. Some of the proposed changes, like the deregulation of natural gas, would require Congressional approval, but many were achieved by the issuance of new regulations. In other instances, the Reagan Administration slowed down the regulatory machinery by firing or demoting key employees, appointing industry officials to key posts, or depriving federal regulatory agencies of the necessary funding. By far, the most controversial aspect of the Administration’s deregulatory agenda was its efforts to curtail environmental regulations at EPA and the Department of Interior. Here, too, as with other aspects of the Reagan Revolution, a relatively small nonprofit organization led the way. In 1976, Joseph Coors created a public interest legal group, the Mountain States Legal Foundation (MSLF), to challenge environmental regulations and other restrictions on the use of public lands in the West. With support from Coors and other business supporters of the “Sage Brush Rebellion,” MSLF quickly became a legal counterweight to the Audubon Society and other environmental groups that had been working with Cecil Andrus, Carter’s Interior Secretary, to protect public lands. Coors selected James G. Watt as the first president of MSLF, and over the next four years, Watt worked vigorously to “check the power of the federal government wherever possible” on issues related to federal land usage.16

Founded by Joseph Coors in 1976, the Mountain States Legal Foundation had a powerful and enduring impact on the nation’s environmental and natural resource policies. When Reagan took office in 1981, he nominated Watt as his Secretary of the Interior, and Watt’s assistant, Anne Gorsuch, as Administrator at EPA. Despite fervent opposition from environmental groups, the Senate approved both nominations. With the benefit of the legal experience they had gained at MSLF, Watt and Gorsuch 15 16

Ibid, p. 44 Congressional Quarterly Almanac 1981-84, page 406

14

launched a broad and enormously controversial attack on federal environmental regulation and the regulatory infrastructure that supported it. At Interior, Watt moved swiftly to approve drilling permits for offshore oil and gas and the leasing of coal and oil deposits on federal lands. While some of his moves were later blocked in the courts, Watt rapidly accelerated the rate of oil and mineral depletion on federal lands, and also slowed Carter Administration plans to expand the acreage of national parks. At EPA, Anne Gorsuch moved swiftly to slow or block environmental regulation through budget cuts, key changes in personnel, and regulatory restructuring. While she was largely stopped in her efforts to get Congress to weaken the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, Gorsuch was hugely successful in reducing EPA’s regulatory and enforcement actions. Large numbers of EPA officials were fired or chased out in the first year, and the agency’s budget cut by nearly 25 percent. As a result, the volume of EPA enforcement actions dropped by nearly 80 percent in the first two years of the Reagan Administration. Both Watt and Gorsuch were eventually forced to resign in 1983, Watt as a result of an insensitive gaffe, and Gorsuch as a result of Congressional investigations into scandals at EPA. Both, however, dramatically shifted the course of federal environmental regulation in ways that still affect public policy today.

Foundations and the Conservative Policy Agenda In the years that let up to and followed the political realignment of 1980, foundations played a major role in funding the development and promotion of conservative policies. Former Senator Bill Bradley once described their fundamental role in the conservative movement as the “base of the pyramid.” In 1997, the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, chronicled the “grantmaking activities and strategies of 12 of the nation’s largest and most visible conservative foundations.” Their study concluded that their effectiveness in influencing public policy was based on seven factors: • The foundations bring a clarity of vision and strong political intention to their grantmaking programs; • Conservative grantmaking has focused on building strong institutions by providing general operating support, rather than project-specific grants; • The foundations realized that the state, local, and neighborhood policy environments could not be ignored in favor of focusing solely on the federal level; • The foundations invested in institutions and projects geared toward the marketing of conservative policy ideas; • The foundations supported the development of conservative public intellectuals and policy leaders; • The foundations supported a wide range of policy institutions, recognizing that a variety of strategies and approaches is needed to advance policy agenda; and • The foundations funded their grantees for the long term, in some cases for two decades or more.

15

--From the Executive Summary of Moving a Public Policy Agenda: The Strategic Philanthropy of Conservative Foundations, National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, 1997

Preparing for Political Realignment: Looking Ahead If major political realignments come around only two or three times a century and if most of the policy changes associated with realignment are achieved in a matter of a few years, nonprofit advocacy groups cannot afford to miss the window of opportunity that is starting to open. It is not too early to begin gearing up; for some organizations it may already be too late. Time, in these matters, is of the essence. Organizations that delay in planning and preparing for political realignment will be forced to play a supporting role. Given the lessons of the past, what should non-profit advocacy groups be doing now to prepare for political realignment? Here are some of the essential steps that must be undertaken: Step 1: Revise Your Strategic Plan

If your organization’s strategic plan is more than a year old, it’s probably time to reassess your strategy. It doesn’t matter how old your organization’s strategic plan is, if it does not take into account a possible political realignment, it needs to be revised. Some of the things you may need to do: •

•

•

•

Revise the timeline for your major goals and key objectives. Instead of a 10-15 timeframe for achieving a major legislative goal, you may want to shorten it to 3-5 years. If Democrats win control of the White House and Congress in 2008, the decisive battle over your issue could easily be fought in the summer of 2009. That means, of course, that all of the key objectives need to realize your legislative goal will need to be achieved in the next three years. Delay could be fatal. Resurvey the political landscape. Successful strategic plans have to take into account changing circumstances. The political landscape has changed significantly within the past 18 months and will change even more dramatically in the next few years. Revisit your “theory of change.” In 1979 and 1980, the supply-siders had a keen understanding of their role and the role that others, including Ronald Reagan, would play in the approaching realignment. Your organization should have a similarly well- developed sense of how your activities, in combination with the activities and contributions of others, will produce change during the coming political realignment. Re-examine your strengths and weaknesses. A compressed timeline will likely alter your organizational self-assessment. Organizational strengths, like fundraising capacity and operational flexibility, will take on increased importance. In the two years that led up to the 1980 election, the Heritage

16

•

•

Foundation vastly expand their fundraising and gained an advantage by “being able to turn out a good paper in a matter of days and sometimes even hours.”17 Reassess your organizational needs. If your organization is going to take a leading role in setting and enacting the policy agenda during political realignment, you may need to modify your staffing requirements in areas like research, communications and fundraising. New personnel and new skill sets may be needed to complement your existing staff. In the two years leading up to the 1980 election, the Heritage Foundation brought on “a young talented research team made up mostly of men and women in their thirties working toward Ph.D.s.”18 Develop new, pro-active strategies. Most progressive organizations have been fighting a rear guard action for so long that they may not remember how to take the offensive. They need to learn from their adversaries who are already maximizing their use of the Internet and information technology. But above all else, progressive nonprofits must plan and operate with a strong sense of urgency.

Step 2: Increase Your Fundraising Capacity With a major political realignment in the offering, the aggregate level of support for political causes and new policy initiatives could rise dramatically in the next few years. In the years leading up to the 1980 election, public support for conservative causes and organizations rose sharply. A similar boost in private giving could swell the coffers of many progressive organizations and candidates, but not every organization will benefit from the increased giving. Much will depend on what your organization does to improve its fundraising capacity over the next two years.

As political realignment draws closer, support for progressive nonprofits will increase dramatically, but not all organizations will prosper. Every organization is different, but here are some of the key things that your organization should do: •

•

17 18

Talk to foundations about your plans. Many progressive nonprofits are almost entirely supported by foundation grants, particularly those that focus on policy development rather than direct advocacy. If your organization is one of those, you need to let your foundation sponsors know the critical role that your organization could play during political realignment. Don’t leave them in the dark. Make sure they understand what’s at stake. If they share your vision, they may fund it. Over the past few decades, conservative foundations—like Scaife and Olin—have played a critical role in promoting conservative policies; progressive foundations need to step up and play a similar role. Cultivate your best donor prospects. Donors who are capable of giving your organization more money deserve, and often demand, special treatment. Frequently, they will want to be better informed about your plans for the future. Give them the “in-sights” they need. Let them know that they are getting in on

Ibid, p. 37 Ibid.

17

•

•

•

the ground floor of something that could have a major impact. Progressive donors, like the organizations they support, are fatigued. For years now, they have been fighting one losing battle after another. It’s time to show them “the promised land.” Expand your direct mail operations. Let your donors know that the “rearguard” battles you’ve been fighting for the past few years are coming to an end. Tell them that your organization now has a long-term plan and that it requires sustained giving. Also, carefully explore the opportunities for adding new supporters to your direct-mail donor base. If the returns on direct mail show sufficient promise, consider making a major investment in your direct mail efforts. Use the Internet to expand your fundraising potential. On-line fundraising, for most advocacy organizations, is not yet producing large revenues. But that will change. There are powerful reasons for investing in on-line fundraising. First, the cost of communicating with, and processing contributions from, your online donors is very small. Second, you can communicate more quickly with your donors when a sudden need arises. Third, on-line donors tend to be more loyal than direct mail donors. Fourth, and perhaps, most importantly, your online donors can also serve as on-line activists. Indeed, most on-line donors are first recruited as activists and then converted to donors. Revamp your fundraising team. Your existing fundraising team may do just fine in a static fundraising market, but if you are going to undertake a lot of organizational changes, you may need to change your fundraising team. Whether it’s a development director, a direct mail firm, or a fundraising consultant, recruit the best talent you can afford. Winchell & Associates, the direct mail firm that was retained by Heritage in 1976, played a major role in its financial ascendancy.

Step 3: Build Your Team Political realignment will require more than new strategies; it will need people to implement them. In the 1970’s, Charls Walker, the founder and chair of the American Council for Capital Formation, recruited Mark Bloomberg as President and CEO of the organization, and Bloomberg rapidly emerged as one of the most powerful and influential lobbyists in Washington. When Ed Feulner was selected to run the Heritage Foundation in 1977, he quickly installed a new team to spearhead his drive to reshape the organization into a powerful political force.

Leadership is always essential to effective nonprofit advocacy, but even more so during times of political realignment. If your organization is going to take a leading role in the upcoming realignment, it may need to bring on new personnel to revamp your fundraising efforts, spearhead your research and policy development, or build your grassroots support. The sooner you act, the better. Step 4: Broaden Your Membership Base If your organization’s political influence is dependent upon the size of your membership, now is a good time to think about expanding it. Adding new members via 18

direct mail can be expensive, particularly in the short-term, but it can pay off. If that’s not an option, or even if it is, you may want to invest money in expanding your membership via the Internet. The real advantages to using the Internet for this purpose are the speed of communication and the interactivity that it fosters. Groups like Moveon.org make it look easy, but you should be careful. While the Internet is a lowcost medium, it takes a lot of persistence and creativity to build and maintain an Internet “community” of supporters. If resources permit, seek professional help.

For organizations that draw strength from their membership base, political realignment offers tremendous opportunity. If your organization enjoys popular support at the grassroots level, now is the time to organize it. Focus on the states that will have the greatest impact on the upcoming elections. By mobilizing supporters in just a key few states, you can dramatically raise the profile of your issue and your organization. But start early; other groups will be competing for the same group of activists. Three years from now, when Congress is furiously debating your flagship issue, you will probably wish that you had devoted more resources to expanding your membership, recruiting on-line activists, and building your grassroots presence. Step 5: Do Your Homework Public policy requires a lot of research. When Heritage was gearing up for 1980, it hired whole teams of Ph.D. candidates to work on their research papers. Long before candidate Reagan formally embraced the Kemp-Roth bill, the supply-siders were developing “dynamic” economic models that took into account the “supply-side” effects of lowering tax rates. Conservative think tanks in the pre-Reagan years began using new analytical tools to bolster their argument that the nation’s deterrence strategy had developed dangerous “windows of vulnerability.”

Solid research is but one component of an effective advocacy campaign, but it’s an essential one. Don’t neglect it. Most progressive organizations already invest heavily in research and do a credible job of building the case for their issue or cause, but research has to be strategic and forward thinking. It’s critically important, for example, to anticipate, and be prepared for, the attacks that the other side will make against your proposal. Engage in pre-emptive research. Step 6: Develop Your Message The 2008 presidential candidates will each develop their own unique messaging strategy, but don’t leave it to the presidential candidates and their campaign advisors to determine how people talk about your issue. That’s your responsibility. The supplysiders didn’t wait for the presidential candidates to find a good way to talk about their issue; neither should you. If you don’t “frame” your issue, your opponents will.

You don’t have to “frame” your issue. Your opponents will be happy to do it for you. 19

George Lakoff’s book19 may have already taught you about the importance of good messaging, but think twice about doing your message strategy in-house. Good messaging is an art form. Policy advocates, particularly those who have been spent all their working life in Washington, D.C, are often too immersed in the details and lose sight of how average Americans respond to their issue. If you have the money, hire a professional. Step 7: Recruit Good Messengers Every good idea needs a good advocate. Long before your issue or legislation reaches the House or Senate floor in 2009 or 2010, you need to identify and recruit the advocates who will present your case to candidates, policymakers, opinion leaders, potential donors, the media and the general public.

In today’s world, where communication is increasingly electronic, it’s easy to underestimate the importance of good speakers and persuasive advocates. Don’t. There is no substitute for good communicators. If you don’t have them now, don’t wait for them to walk in the door. Be sure that the leaders of your organization receive the media training and the talking points they need to make effective presentations. If your organization hosts conferences or seminars, seek out the best speakers to represent your cause or explain your issue. And when you find a really good speaker who can inspire others to action, seek out the best venues for him or her to speak at. Step 8: Deploy Your Message Some of the greatest messages never get heard. Every good message requires an even better communications plan. There are a number of ways to get your message out: a political campaign, a paid media campaign, an earned media campaigns, a viral marketing campaign, etc. But if you just draft your talking points and wait for the press to call, you are wasting your time.

If you draft your talking points and wait for the press to call, you don’t have a message strategy. A media plan does not have to be elaborate to be effective, but it must reach the targeted audience. Spurned by most of the business media, the supply-siders used the Wall Street Journal editorial pages as their primary vehicle for disseminating their ideas to business leaders and the broader public. The Heritage Foundation hand fed their reports to conservative columnists and recruited conservatives in Congress to deliver their research findings on the House and Senate floors. The Committee on the Present Danger called upon allied groups like the American Security Council and the National Strategy Information Center to help disseminate the papers and proposals of CPD members. 19

Don’t Think of an Elephant/Know Your Values and Frame the Debate, Chelsea Green Publishing, 2004. If you haven’t read it already, read it now.

20

Today’s high-tech, highly decentralized, media environment is, however, a vastly richer environment than what existed 26 years ago. From the blogosphere to podcasting to cable news there is no shortage of new media markets for your message. The challenge, and it is an acute one, is putting together an integrated media strategy that makes the best use of all the available outlets. This is not a job for amateurs. In crafting your media strategy, make sure that you have access to professional advice. Step 9: Assemble Your Coalition No matter what you think, you cannot do it alone. It doesn’t matter how powerful or influential you think your organization is, it needs allies. Conservatives organizations in the late 1970s frequently worked in close partnership with one another. Initially rebuffed by the mainstream business organizations, the American Council for Capital Formation, for example, persuaded leading trade associations, the Business Roundtable, and other major business groups to endorse the Kemp-Roth bill.

Almost nothing is accomplished in Washington unless there is an active coalition behind it. Progressive organizations hoping to achieve fundamental change in the upcoming political realignment should, at a minimum, be working in close collaboration with other groups. In many instances, however, there are clear advantages to creating a formal coalition on behalf of your proposal or cause. Building and maintaining an effective coalition can be time consuming, but, if done properly, coalitions can yield enormous benefits. They can bring more resources to bear upon your effort, demonstrate breath of public support, create early momentum, generate increased publicity, and reduce duplication of effort. If you do need to form a coalition, form it earlier, rather than later. It takes time to mold a coalition into an effective fighting force. By forming a coalition early, it also allows you to better gauge the strengths and commitment of your coalition partners. But most importantly, if you wait until after the 2008 election to assemble your coalition, you will be competing with every other progressive cause for organizational support. Step 10: Pick a Fight You have completed a strategic reassessment, enhanced your fundraising capacity, added key personnel, expanded your membership base, developed your message, recruited strong advocates, and built your coalition, now what? It’s time, if you have not done so already, to “pick a fight.” In the upcoming political realignment, there will be no shortage of progressive ideas and issues competing for the attention of candidates and policymakers. You need to test, and ultimately demonstrate, the power of your idea or proposal.

It doesn’t matter how powerful your idea is, the Washington policy environment is controlled by inertia. Absent strong momentum for change, a federal policy will stay at rest…even during a period of political realignment. You must build the momentum for change. 21

There are, essentially, three ways that your organization, or your allies, can build momentum for your issue or idea in advance of political realignment: •

•

•

A political campaign. Policymakers and opinion leaders will be closely watching the upcoming Congressional elections, including any key primary battles, to determine what issues or concerns are motivating swing voters and boosting turn out. Most progressive organizations and their allies do not have the resources to influence the outcome of a large number of races, but it only takes two or three success stories to capture the attention of the media and political strategists. If your organization or your allies have a political action committee, you might consider airing your own campaign ads. If you don’t have a political action committee or the resources to commit to an independent expenditure campaign, you can still educate political strategists and their candidates about your issue or proposal in hopes that candidates in key races will make it a major issue in their campaigns. A state legislative fight. With the devolution of government programs and authority, states are more useful than ever as testing grounds for new ideas and programs. Health care is an excellent example. In the past few months organizations fighting for health coverage for the uninsured have won two major victories. In Maryland, advocates won passage of a bill that would require major employers, like Walmart, to provide health care insurance to their employees. In Massachusetts, Gov. Romney recently signed a bill that requires all citizens of Massachusetts to have health insurance and provides subsidies for those who cannot otherwise afford it. These victories have demonstrated the saliency of the health care issue and will boost momentum for federal action. The same principle can be applied to build momentum for other issues. A federal legislative fight. Even with the Republicans still in control of Congress, progressive groups may have opportunities in the months ahead, particularly in the next Congress, to demonstrate the saliency of their issue and build momentum for a larger legislation effort in 2009. The issue of global warming, for example, is rapidly picking up support as demonstrated last fall by the passage of a Senate resolution acknowledging the threat of global warming and the need for action. In politics, however, timing is everything. If you prematurely force a Congressional fight and you lose too badly, your Congressional supporters may be reluctant to try again. Also, your opponents in Congress might vote for a weak or largely symbolic amendment in hopes of “inoculating” themselves from having to support your larger agenda. Be careful. As important as it is at this stage to begin registering some victories and building momentum, don’t win the battle and lose the war.

22

Conclusion Without the groundwork laid by organizations like the American Council for Capital Formation, the Committee on the Present Danger, the Heritage Foundation, and the Mountain States Legal Foundation, the Reagan Revolution might have fallen fall far short of its ambitious aims. Progressive groups seeking to effect change in the next political realignment need to learn from their example. If political realignment is really coming, and all the signs are there, the stakes are high for progressive nonprofits…and time is limited. If the 2008 election is a realigning election, the Congress that is sworn in January of 2009 will likely to be as productive and enduring in its impact as any Congress since the 97th Congress that took office in 1981. History will be “writ large” during the first two years of the next Administration. For organizations that are committed to changing public policy, it is time to prepare and it will soon be time to act. In public policy, fortune favors those who prepare. It doesn’t matter how sweeping or small the change that you seek to make, if your organization is not in a position to advance it during the next few years, you may miss your window of opportunity. That’s not to say that your idea or proposal will be foreclosed from consideration for all time, but it does mean that the energy and resources required to achieve it in later years could be much greater. Some progressive groups will proceed cautiously, preferring to take a “wait and see” approach. There is, after all, no guarantee that current political trends will prevail. Republican fortunes could rebound. The Democrats could blow it. But progressive organizations seeking to change public policy should be guided by their hopes, not their fears. This is no time for timidity. One final note: the historic opportunities presented by political realignment are not to be taken lightly. Responsibility comes with opportunity. If history is a reliable indicator, some of the profound changes that will be adopted as a result of the next political realignment will work. Some, however, will fail. The whole country—not just the nonprofits that are seeking to advance their particular idea or cause—has a lot at stake. No ideology or organization has a monopoly on the right solutions. Organizations and groups seeking to effect change, conservative or progressive, have an obligation to ensure that the changes they seek are the right ones. Get it done…but get it done right.

23

About the Author: Mr. Walker is the president of Enterprising Strategies, a strategy and management consulting firm specializing in nonprofit organizations. During the past 30 years, he has worked for Congressional leaders and major nonprofits. While on Capitol Hill, he worked for three Congressional leaders: Rep. John B. Anderson, the Chair of the House Republican Conference; Rep. Morris K. Udall, the Chair of the House Interior Committee, and Rep. John J. LaFalce, the Chair of the House Small Business Committee. Off the Hill, Mr. Walker has served as Legislative Counsel for AARP, President of Handgun Control, Inc., and Executive Director of the Common Cause Education Fund. During the late-1970’s he worked in the House Republican Conference, when Rep. John B. Anderson was its chair. As a Congressional aide, Mr. Walker sat in on many House GOP strategy sessions and saw firsthand the “Reagan Revolution” in the making.

24